Thursday, July 06, 2017

It's Like a Third Grade Playground

Watch this "CNN blackmail" thing, it will be going on for a while. It is a sort of experiment to see if the government can destroy the free press -- if CNN falls they'll all go like dominoes.

Trump tweeted a stupid pro-wrestling video of him beating up someone with "CNN" on their head, and also tweeted that he was going to change the network's name to "FNN" -- for "Fraud News Network." It was just embarrassing, like an eight-year-old's fantasy, and with an eight-year-old's production value.

It turned out that a version of the video had been circulating on Reddit's /The_Donald subreddit, and the CNN found out who had made it. When they looked into it, it turned out this same person had done a bizarre image that showed a bunch of CNN personalities with Stars of David beside them, implying that ... I don't know the exact nature of the conspiracy theory, but somehow it is significant to him that a lot of Jewish people work at CNN. He had posted stuff about how “most blacks don't know who their fathers are,” and claimed to hate Muslims. His account is now deleted but it was full of the sort of standard alt-right troll stuff.

Apparently when CNN confronted the guy he apologized and took his stupid stuff off the Internet, and CNN thought that was good enough. He said he was just trying to get a reaction and didn't mean what he said, and he closed his Reddit account. CNN reporter Andrew Kaczynski wrote:

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Listen, if I'd been CNN I would have hung that guy up to dry. A nice, informative news story about the "producer" of the President's video, and a review of some of his other works and comments on Reddit about Muslims, Jews, blacks and other minorities. As far as I'm concerned, they made a mistake letting the guy off the hook. These slimeballs hide behind their anonymity, they can say anything as long as they don't have to be accountable for it, and then when they're found out they were "just joking," or they're "not really like that."

You probably know that the rightwing went crazy, accusing CNN of "blackmail," for giving the guy a break.

This came days after the story came out that Jared Kushner had threatened Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough that if they didn't apologize publicly to Trump for some things they'd said, The Enquirer would publish a story about an affair they were having. They didn't apologize, and sure enough the Trump family followed through: the tabloid headline was "Joe & Mika: TV Couple's Sleazy Cheating Scandal."

Now that is blackmail.

If CNN had published a story about the guy who made the video, interviewed his neighbors and schoolteachers, showed his hometown, nobody would have blinked an eye. But they gave him a break.

Donald Trump, Jr., took it to a new level with his tweet the following day: “So I guess they weren’t effective threatening the admin so they go after & bully a 15 y/o? Seems in line w their ‘standards’ #CNNBlackmail”.

Kaczynski responded on Twitter: "Need to point out again HanAssholeSolo is a middle aged man. People claiming he's 15 are wrong. Some are intentionally spreading this."

Now, remember, preceding this, CNN had published a story about Trump's connections that was apparently incorrect. When the story was found to be wrong, CNN issued a retraction and apology and three employees resigned. Quick, do you remember what the story was? It was about a Russian investment fund and Trump officials, a partner of Trump's named Anthony Scaramucci was mentioned. This forgettable and under-researched story was never shown on television but had appeared on their web site. Trump had jumped on this to say that CNN was publishing "fake news." This is apparently what led up to the stupid wrestling video.

CNN employees are getting death threats -- The Daily Beast said that "The parents and wife of Andrew Kaczynski, author of the GIF story and leader of CNN’s investigative K-File team, had received around 50 harassing phone calls each by Wednesday while other K-File team members had ugly messages—apparently from Trump supporters—left at their homes." CNN World President Jeff Zucker told a meeting of reporters that the physical safety of CNN staffers “is an incredibly serious issue.”

This also happens while Trump's Justice Department is considering a merger between Time Warner -- CNN's parent company -- and AT&T. As the New York TImes reported, "White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T." This isn't blackmail, this is just ordinary smalltime gangster stuff.

These are times when America needs to remember who we are. The Constitution offers several avenues for dealing with an unquaified person like this, and we have to be patient and let the law work itself out. We'll be okay, eventually.

116 Comments:

Weaving through the mountains on a cross-country road trip with my wife, I was quite surprised to discover that — at least according to President Trump — I am the talk of the Group of 20 meeting.

Trump tweeted: “Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!”

Really? Everyone? I’ve been at my share of global summits, so I sort of doubt that. The world leaders certainly have more important topics to grapple with. To take one issue close to my heart: how to deal with the challenge of climate change now that the president has declared that the United States will be withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. Or how to deal with the leadership vacuum now that Trump has turned his back on our traditional allies in Europe and Asia.

On one level, the president’s tweet is so obviously wrong and so evidently self-serving that the temptation is simply to ignore it. But, because he is the president, his words warrant a response.

First, I had nothing to do with the Democratic National Committee — I chaired Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. So there was no DNC server for me to refuse to give and I was never asked for one. Second, the CIA has no role in domestic intelligence-gathering — in fact, it’s prohibited. The CIA would never ask anyone at the DNC for a server. Whether the FBI asked the DNC for access to a server, I don’t know, beyond what I’ve read.

What I do know is this, which is why I’m choosing to respond to Trump’s tweet: The Russians stole my emails. When they did that, they committed a crime. They also invaded my privacy, and the privacy of a multitude of friends, family and colleagues with whom I communicated. That, combined with vicious lies spread by the alt-right media such as the so-called Comet Ping Pong conspiracy, exposed them to potential harm, as was evidenced by the shooting at Comet. The crime the Russians committed, as the intelligence community has concluded, was for the purpose of helping Trump get elected president.

So the responsible thing for a U.S. president to do, in these circumstances, is to have the backbone to stand up against Russian interference in U.S. democracy — not to question, as Trump did on Thursday, the competence of our own intelligence community and to publicly doubt, once again, the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacking. Trump talks big on Twitter, but when he came face to face with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, we heard him say what an honor it was to meet him. It has been reported that Trump asked Putin about the election hacking, giving Putin the chance to issue an obligatory denial, despite all the evidence gathered by the U.S. intelligence community. One can only hope that Trump made clear to Putin that the United States won’t tolerate continued Russian interference in elections, as we’ve seen in the United States, France and now in Germany and across Europe. (This is one conversation that it would be nice to have a tape of.)

As president, Trump is supposed to be doing his job representing the United States in a respectable fashion to make sure we maintain and enhance our standing around the world. Instead, he has his face glued to his phone. It’s really sad that the U.S. president can’t get his head in the game even at the G-20 summit of world leaders.

God only knows what our president will be tweeting by the time my wife and I get to Utah.

"Listen, if I'd been CNN I would have hung that guy up to dry. A nice, informative news story about the "producer" of the President's video, and a review of some of his other works and comments on Reddit about Muslims, Jews, blacks and other minorities. As far as I'm concerned, they made a mistake letting the guy off the hook. These slimeballs hide behind their anonymity, they can say anything as long as they don't have to be accountable for it, and then when they're found out they were "just joking," or they're "not really like that."

That's just like Wyatt/bad anonymous accusing a transwoman of "can prey on young girls in the ladies' room as much as possible," and then falsely claiming he never meant it. Slimeball Wyatt/bad anonymous hides behind his anonymity - he should be exposed.

"On “Meet The Press” Sunday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the plan “not the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard, but it’s pretty close.” Graham slammed the president for “forgiving and forgetting” Russian tampering in last year’s election, and said the move only increased suspicion of the Trump administration.

“The more he talks about this in terms of not being sure, the more he throws our intelligence communities under the bus, the more he’s willing to forgive and forget Putin, the more suspicion,” Graham continued. “And I think it’s going to dog his presidency until he breaks this cycle.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) doubled down on those assertions on “Face the Nation,” saying Sunday he was sure Putin could surely help tackle the issue of cybersecurity “since he’s doing the hacking.”

Trump said he “strongly pressed” Putin during their meeting at the G-20 summit in Germany about Russian meddling in the U.S. election, but his counterpart “vehemently denied” any such efforts. Trump has mostly rejected any evidence of interference by Moscow, despite U.S. intelligence agencies saying Putin personally ordered an “influence campaign” to help him defeat rival Hillary Clinton...

Mr. Putin has for years — 17 years, to be exact, for this is how long he has been in power — been clear about what he wanted from his relationship with the United States president: He wants to be treated as an equal partner on the world stage and not to be questioned about or pressed on the Russian government’s actions inside Russia or in what he considers his sphere of influence.

The one accomplishment of the meeting — a limited cease-fire in Syria — is exactly what Mr. Putin wanted. Not the cease-fire, that is: He wanted an acknowledgment that the United States and Russia are equal negotiating parties in the Syrian conflict. Now, Mr. Trump has handed him much more than that. He has demonstrated that Russia and the United States can negotiate Syrian life and death without involving any Syrians.

But what was really important was what was apparently missing from the meeting: any criticism of Russia’s war in Ukraine, including its occupation of Crimea, and of the crackdown on political dissent inside Russia itself. In his accounting of the meeting, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson mentioned Ukraine only to say that a new United States representative on the matter would be appointed. He then managed to avoid answering the one question from a journalist about Ukraine and sanctions imposed in response to the Russian war there. Nor did the correspondents at the briefing appear concerned with getting answers on Ukraine.

He goes on to note Putin’s many human rights atrocities, none of which were apparently mentioned at all or even considered relevant by the Trump administration. Dissent is more and more being crushed in Russia, as are the human rights of LGBT people, and the number of political prisoners is rising daily. The Russian news media, largely aligned with, or at the very least terrified of, Putin has been crowing about the results.

Since at least the 1970s, Russian leaders and Soviet leaders before them had to face questions about political freedoms and human rights whenever they met with their American counterparts. The Trump administration has ended that tradition. In May, Mr. Tillerson, in a rare public statement on policy, said that American economic and strategic interests had to take precedence over human rights advancement. When he traveled to Moscow in April, he declined to meet with human rights activists, breaking with decades of tradition. It is no surprise that Mr. Trump broached none of these issues. No wonder Mr. Putin and his news media view the meeting as a triumph.

In very concrete terms, through speech and action, the president signaled a willingness to align the United States with Vladimir Putin’s worldview, and took steps to advance this realignment. He endorsed, nearly in its totality, the narrative the Russian leader has worked so meticulously to construct.

The readout of Trump’s lengthy meeting with Putin included several key points. First, the United States will “move on” from election hacking issues with no accountability or consequences for Russia; in fact, the U.S. will form a “framework” with Russia to cooperate on cybersecurity issues, evaluating weaknesses and assessing potential responses jointly. Second, the two presidents agreed not to meddle in “each other’s” domestic affairs—equating American activities to promote democracy with Russian aggression aimed at undermining it, in an incalculable PR victory for the Kremlin…

Each of these points represents a significant victory for Putin. Each of them will weaken U.S. tools for defending its interests and security from the country that defines itself as America’s “primary adversary.” Trump has ceded the battle space—physical, virtual, moral—to the Kremlin. And the president is going to tell us this is a “win.”

Of course he is. Everything he does is declared to be a win, even when everyone else sees it was an obvious loss . I suspect the only thing that prevented it from being even worse was that it was a formal meeting with many aides on both sides in attendence. I’m quite sure it would have been far worse if it had just been a private meeting between the two.

"...In a new statement, Goldstone confirmed what Trump Jr. himself revealed Sunday: That he enticed the then-Republican candidate’s son by indicating that Veselnitskaya could provide damaging information about Democrats.

“The lawyer had apparently stated she had some information regarding illegal campaign contributions to the DNC which she believed Mr. Trump Jr. might find important,” he said.

At the meeting, which also included Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and a top campaign aide, Paul Manafort, the Russian lawyer offered “a few very general remarks” about campaign funding, Goldstone said.

She then proceeded to discuss the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 U.S. law that imposed sanctions on Russia for its alleged human rights abuses. Angered over the law, Russia retaliated by halting U.S. adoptions of Russian children.

Trump Jr. has said his father was unaware of the meeting, and both he and Goldstone said there was no additional follow-up beyond the brief June 2016 session.

The involvement of the Agalarovs brings the meeting closer to both Trump’s past business interests and to the Kremlin. Trump has spent time with both Emin Agalarov and his father, Aras — appearing in a music video for the Russian musician, which was filmed at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton Hotel in 2013..."

Qatar is facing an ongoing blockade led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and joined by Egypt and Bahrain, which President Trump has taken credit for sparking. Kushner, meanwhile, has reportedly played a key behind-the-scenes role in hardening the U.S. posture toward the embattled nation.

"...The network did not apologize to Comey for alleging he did anything illegal or unethical nor did Doocy’s fellow Fox and Friends hosts comment the network’s flub.

Senior White House aide Kellyanne Conway ran with the information during her appearance on CNN Monday and asked why CNN wasn’t reporting the story. CNN ultimately discussed the inaccuracies in the story and the report fell apart by late Monday afternoon..."

Not holding my breath for Trump's apology for quoting bullshit lies or to see how many FOX News "journalists" resign from FOX after this "correction."

We have word today that Mitch McConnell is going to delay the August recess in order to ram through some kind of health care atrocity.

Meanwhile, the ACA is doing pretty well which, of course, explains why they have to destroy it:

A newly released study confirmed that the Affordable Care Act is not failing and in fact insurers are on track to have their “best year” yet under the ACA. However, Republicans are determined to pass a new health repeal bill that could derail insurance markets. If the ACA fails, it will be because of Republican sabotage.

A new report confirmed what the CBO stated in its score of the Senate healthcare repeal bill: The Affordable Care Act is not failing.

McClatchy: Death spiral? Obamacare insurers may be having ‘best year’ yet under ACA

Los Angeles Times: More evidence shows Obamacare is getting healthier, but will that stop the GOP wrecking crew?

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is working hard to get people killed:

Politico: “Ted Cruz’s plan to give insurers freedom to sell plans that don’t comply with Obamacare’s insurance regulations may be conservatives’ last best chance to salvage the stalled Senate health care bill. But it might also send Obamacare insurance markets into a death spiral.”

This is a reminder to keep pushing hard on your Senators and House members on this. They would love nothing more if everyone let up on them in the dog days of summer.

Between the Trump administration's Russia investigation and the people pressing these Republicans hard on health care, it is possible to stop this thing.

"Donald Trump promised a “major speech” attacking campaign rival Hillary Clinton last June, just hours after his son, Donald Trump Jr., set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer he was told had compromising information on the Democratic candidate.

In a speech on June 7, 2016, first flagged by Washington Post reporter Philip Bump, then-candidate Trump promised vaguely to discuss “all the things that have taken place with the Clintons.”

VIDEO Donald Trump Primary Night Speech 6/7/2016

“I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week, and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons,” Trump said at the time. “I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend. Who knows?”

Trump’s promise of big Clinton news came four days after his eldest son was contacted by publicist Rob Goldstone about information obtained by the Russian government that would be damaging to Clinton, according to emails Trump Jr. released Tuesday.

Trump Jr.’s emails show that Goldstone offered a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who Goldstone said had information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

Trump Jr. replied simply: “If it’s what you say I love it.” A meeting between the two was set up for several days later, confirming the timing via email around 5 p.m. on June 7. Hours later, his father began the speech

Trump Jr. later met with the lawyer in a session that included the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Trump Jr. said he did not tell his father about the meeting.

Donald Trump failed to follow through on his campaign promise to reveal dirt on Clinton. He instead focused a June 13 event in New Hampshire on national security issues. The Post noted he pledged to reveal damning information on Clinton at a later date.

A hacker, which U.S. intelligence agencies have linked to Russia, began releasing emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee on June 15, 2016. The intelligence agencies say the Kremlin actively worked to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump under the direction of President Vladimir Putin.."

"...The iceberg, which is likely to be named A68, was already floating before it broke away so there is no immediate impact on sea levels, but the calving has left the Larsen C ice shelf reduced in area by more than 12 percent.

The Larsen A and B ice shelves, which were situated further north on the Antarctic Peninsula, collapsed in 1995 and 2002, respectively.

"This resulted in the dramatic acceleration of the glaciers behind them, with larger volumes of ice entering the ocean and contributing to sea-level rise," said David Vaughan, glaciologist and director of science at British Antarctic Survey.

"If Larsen C now starts to retreat significantly and eventually collapses, then we will see another contribution to sea level rise," he added."

"The number of people known to have attended the controversial June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower has grown to include a Russian-American lobbyist who confirmed his attendance, and an unknown, possible seventh participant.

The meeting, which paired Donald Trump Jr. and Kremlin-linked attorney Natalia Veselnitska reportedly lasted just 20 minutes, but has caused massive headaches for the Trump White House by reigniting claims the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

Trump Jr., his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort were known to have attended the meeting with Veselnitskaya and music publicist Rob Goldstone, who brokered the get-together promising campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Rinat Akhmetshin, who NBC identified as a Russian-American lobbyist, confirmed his participation to the Associated Press. Akhmetshin denied reports he has ties to Russian intelligence agencies. He told the AP Trump Jr. asked Veselnitskaya for evidence of illicit money flowing to the Democratic National Committee, but Veselnitskaya said she did not have that information..."

"...Donald Trump used to brag about doing business with Russians. He told David Letterman back in 2013 “I’ve done a lot of business with the Russians, I know the Russians very well. They’re smart and they’re tough and they’re not looking so dumb right now.” That was around the time of the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, when Trump was tight with billionaire oligarch Aras Agalarov, also known as Putin’s builder, and his pop star son Emin, both of whom were instrumental in the “Hillary dirt” meeting with Donald Jr. After years of trying fruitlessly to get a Trump project off the ground in the country, he had finally succeeded in making the contact who could make his dream come true.

According to Michael Isikoff at Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-details-emerge-moscow-real-estate-deal-led-trump-kremlin-alliance-190126219.html), it was a typical Trump arrangement in which Agalarov would build the tower and license Trump’s name for big dollars. Donald Jr. was put it charge and Ivanka even made a trip in 2014 to see the proposed property. Unfortunately for the Trumps, the project got shelved when the Russian economy went south due to the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union following the Russian incursion into Crimea (something President Trump is now in a position to “fix”).

Agalarov told Forbes back in March that he was still on board the Trump train and that “anything Trump related I would be interested to pursue. I think today the Trump brand is stronger all over the world. And him being the president; I mean, it’s a big brand now.” Indeed it is.

Nonethless, Trump was all over the map about his involvement with Russia during the campaign, saying in one breath that he was good pals with Vladimir Putin and another denying that he’d ever had anything to do with Russia in any way, shape or form. In his first press conference as president he said, “I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia.”

But asking if Trump has investments in Russia was never the right question. The question to ask was whether any Russians had investments in Donald Trump. Some years back Donald Trump Jr. told a real estate conference, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” When writer James Dodson asked how the Trumps were able to finance their purchase of golf courses during the recession when credit had all dried up, Eric Trump told him, “Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” (Eric Trump has denied he ever said this.)..."

Putin has critics and opponents murdered left and right, he's turned Russia's democracy into a dictatorship, seeks to destroy NATO and the European Union, for the first time since world war two has annexed territory not belonging to it, has interefered in democratic elections and sought to harm western democracies, invaded sovereign Ukraine to keep it out of Nato, pretends he's fighting ISIS in Syria when in reality he's only propping up a dictator the U.S. wants to overthrow, and has gone on a rampage violating human rights in Russia...

And Wyatt/bad anonymous tries to claim he's an ally of the United States!

"The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in June 2017 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.36°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.71°C above the 20th century average), and was the 3rd warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.70°C per century.

The greatest predictor of domestic violence is “environments that support male control” or promote “male authority” over females.

An in-depth report by ABC News point to research that has existed for years, but that many people have ignored. The studies consistently show that domestic violence is worse among church communities, and that many abusers justify their actions based on Bible verses about the subservience of women.

The report quotes theology professor Steven Tracy (from 2008):

“It is widely accepted by abuse experts (and validated by numerous studies) that evangelical men who sporadically attend church are more likely than men of any other religious group (and more likely than secular men) to assault their wives.”

The report looked into dozens of stories from abuse victims and confirmed the pattern we already saw in studies like the one published in the Lancet in 2015. That analysis looked at 66 surveys across 44 countries and concluded that the greatest predictor of partner violence was “environments that support male control” or promote “male authority” over females. Both are evident in religious communities.

Some of the Bible quotes used to justify abuse include:

Ephesians 5: 22-23: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour.”

1 Timothy 2: 11-12: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent.“

But the role of religion in domestic violence doesn’t end there. Predominantly male church hierarchies often facilitate the behavior and cover it up in the same way the Catholic Church has done with abuse of children. And the fact that divorce is prohibited in many Christian denominations doesn’t help, either.

ABC quoted Annette Gillespie, the CEO of the Safe Steps Family Violence Centre, who said it was “extremely common” for women to be “encouraged by the church to stay in an abusive relationship.”

“I know that for many women the experience of violence was worsened by the lack of support people turned to in the church… Often people say it is the guilt of going against the church teaching that leads them to stay in relationships well beyond a time they should leave because they are trying to please the church as well as please their partners… they often feel they will have to choose between leaving religion or violence… So when they leave a relationship, they leave a church.”

This report was the second part of a series of ABC investigations, with the first one focusing on Islam and domestic abuse. After reviewing both pieces, and dozens of studies on the topic, it is clear that the concrete religious doctrines that arose at a time of gender inequity and continue to perpetuate it contribute to the massive number of domestic abuse cases.

It’s not enough for church leaders to merely condemn domestic violence. If they want to change these numbers, the pressure is on them to disavow or rationalize away those problematic verses and change a mindset that’s taken ahold among their congregations. That starts by promoting gender equality within the church instead of archaic ideals about complementarianism, suggesting that men and women must adapt to predetermined gender roles.

Bigots like Wyatt/bad anonymous sometimes claim they don't oppose transwomen being able to use the women's bathroom because they consider trans women predators (although Wyatt/bad anonymous has accused trans women of being predators himself), they oppose access because they claim letting transpeople use the bathroom they prefer will enable perverts who will slip into the ladies' room by claiming to be trans. The first problem here is that we're blaming the innocent for what the guilty are doing. As if you get all drivers off the road on account of the minority who drive while drunk.

Secondly, invasion of women's privacy has occurred on occasion for a long time, with or without transpeople. It hasn't got anything to do with us. And guys that do it don't claim to be trans. E.g., I have yet to hear Donald Trump claiming to be trans.

And in Trump's case, his backers didn't care. Pat McCrory was still defending his law preventing transpeople from using the bathroom of their choice at the same time he was supporting Trump. How many Trump supporters renounced their support on hearing about good old Donnie's shenanigans? This idea that they're horrified by men invading women's privacy depends on who the man in question is. They may not care in the least.

If people were not anti-trans and if there were real risks with transpeople in the bathroom, then they'd focus on the bathroom. They'd restrict their measures to the bathroom alone. Instead, they're also promoting measures to discriminate against transpeople everywhere--restaurants, shops, etc. Now what harm exactly is a transperson going to do in a restaurant? None. So why the need to discriminate there? Only because they hate transpeople and want us out of everywhere, not just restrooms.

Fox News: DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL? [as if there's a question about that fact] Four GOP Senators disapprove of ObamaCare repeal effort

Newsflash for Fox News!: there's a lot more than 4 GOP Senators who disapprove of this attempt to leave tens of millions of American citizens without health insurance coverage.

"...now that “Obamacare’s” not universally popular namesake is out of office, the ACA is being seen for its provisions — that is, for what it has accomplished — rather than simply through the lens of partisanship.

Large majorities (http://pollingreport.com/health.htm) like nearly all of the law’s major provisions, and now they prefer the ACA over any current alternative. The November 2016 Kaiser survey numbers (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/08/partisans-on-affordable-care-act-provisions/) on this were stunning. For instance, fully 90 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans supported allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26; 89 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans approved the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses for many preventive services; 91 percent and 67 percent wanted subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans to purchase insurance; 90 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Republicans support the Medicaid expansion; 75 percent and 63 percent wanted to prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of one’s medical history; and 82 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans support increasing the Medicare payroll tax on earnings for upper-income Americans.

This consensus had two important exceptions: Republicans and independents opposed both the individual mandate that everyone have health insurance, and also the business mandate that employers with 50 or more employees offer insurance.

President Trump and the Republicans apparently thought that the public’s opposition to these mandates was enough to do in Obamacare. They have found that they were wrong..."

Fox News: DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL? [as if there's a question about that fact] Four GOP Senators disapprove of ObamaCare repeal effort

Newsflash for Fox News!: there's a lot more than 4 GOP Senators who disapprove of this attempt to leave tens of millions of American citizens without health insurance coverage.

"...now that “Obamacare’s” not universally popular namesake is out of office, the ACA is being seen for its provisions — that is, for what it has accomplished — rather than simply through the lens of partisanship.

Large majorities (http://pollingreport.com/health.htm) like nearly all of the law’s major provisions, and now they prefer the ACA over any current alternative. The November 2016 Kaiser survey numbers (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/08/partisans-on-affordable-care-act-provisions/) on this were stunning. For instance, fully 90 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans supported allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26; 89 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republicans approved the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses for many preventive services; 91 percent and 67 percent wanted subsidies for low- and middle-income Americans to purchase insurance; 90 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Republicans support the Medicaid expansion; 75 percent and 63 percent wanted to prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of one’s medical history; and 82 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans support increasing the Medicare payroll tax on earnings for upper-income Americans.

This consensus had two important exceptions: Republicans and independents opposed both the individual mandate that everyone have health insurance, and also the business mandate that employers with 50 or more employees offer insurance.

"President Trump and the Republicans apparently thought that the public’s opposition to these mandates was enough to do in Obamacare. They have found that they were wrong..."

That's a Republican talking in its Orwellian finest. Tens of thousands will die and more lead worse lives if Obamacare is replaced with Trumpcare and Wyatt/bad anonymous says that's not a humanitarian disaster, its freedom! It takes a real a-hole to say Good anonymous is being misleading rather than Wyatt/bad anonymous.

Republicans are truly heartless evil bastards.

Good anonymous said "For verification of these facts, see CBO.gov"

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "oh yeah, those are the guys who said the ACA would reduce the deficit".

Republicans hate the CBO because they hate facts. One of my favourite bits of Republican BS was that the CBO overestimated how many more Americans would get insurance coverage under Obamacare. Fewer Americans were covered than the CBO said but this was because Republican governors refused to expand Medicaid as Obamacare made possible by paying 100% of the states costs. If Republican governors had done the right thing the CBO's numbers would have been dead on. But of course yet again Republicans don't give a damn about the tens (hundreds?) of thousands then sentence to death, as long as they can interfere with the implementation of a REPUBLICAN plan just because it was put in place by Obama.

Wyatt/bad anonymous said "ha-ha! reading through the posts earlier today, I see Priya repeatedly trying to provoke comments oh well, maybe I won't post anything at all about those inane comments that should drive lazy Priya freakin' mad!!".

Oh dear, whatever shall I do if you don't respond to my comments! If you don't respond the depression will drive me to suicide! [/sarcasm (because Wyatt's pretty stupid)]

LOL, you've made this claim before loser. Remember "it will be a cold day in hell before I ever respond to another one of Priya's inane comments."?

You repeatedly claim you aren't going to respond but you never have the balls to keep it up.

I am not a liberal snowflake. My feelings aren't fragile, my heart isn't bleeding.I am a badass believer in human rights.My toughness is in tenderness.My strength is in the service of others.There is nothing more fierce than formidable unconditional love.There is nothing more courageous than compassion.But if my belief in equity, empathy, goodness and love indeed makes me or people like me snowflakes, then you should know - winter is coming.

"...Since Trump took office, voters have gone to the polls 24 times in 13 states to fill vacancies in their state legislatures — giving us a data set that is robust enough for us to start identifying patterns. And the results in these races echo the returns from Kansas and Montana: Democrats have overperformed almost everywhere.

Since Jan. 20, Democrats have won 12 special legislative elections, and Republicans have won 11. But because so many special elections take place in safe districts, win-loss records can only tell you so much. Instead, you’re better off comparing their final results to the district’s baseline partisanship, which FiveThirtyEight measures using a weighted average of the last two presidential election results as calculated by Daily Kos. And in the 15 special legislative elections to pit at least one Democrat against at least one Republican, 12 have seen a net swing toward the Democrats.

Wide variation exists in these results, some of which can probably be explained by local factors. For instance, the GOP’s two best performances both came in Connecticut, whose Democratic governor is deeply unpopular; similarly, one of the Democrats’ best improvements came in Oklahoma, which has likewise soured on its Republican governor.

But, overall, the trend is clear. Democratic special-election candidates have improved their margins over Republicans relative to their district’s partisan lean by an average of 14.4 percentage points. This pattern has popped up in districts from rural Minnesota to the suburbs of Atlanta to the Black Belt of Louisiana. In two instances (New Hampshire House District Carroll 6 and New York Assembly District 9), the shift was enough to flip the seat from red to blue. As Trump himself might say, “There’s something going on.”

Indeed, the few federal special election results we have so far in 2017 would fit right into the table above. In the April 18 primary in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, for instance, the margin shifted 7.4 points to the left7; in its May 16 general election, the margin in Georgia Senate District 32 (which has a lot of overlap with the 6th Congressional District) shifted 7.9 points in the same direction. In other words, the same movement was evident in both federal and state elections, giving Democrats hope that their strength in legislative elections in 2017 bodes well for their chances in next year’s midterms.

But legislative special elections aren’t good only for predicting who will control the House of Representatives in two years. They’re also leading indicators of future gubernatorial and — get this — state legislative results. If nothing else, 2017’s legislative elections so far put Democrats on track to make big gains in statehouses across the country in 2018...."

President Trump warned of the dangers of voter fraud Wednesday, as he kicked off the first meeting of his voter fraud commission.

Speaking to his Commission on Election Integrity, Trump called its work a “sacred duty” and said he hopes its findings will give way to the “full truth.”

“Every time voter fraud occurs, it cancels out the vote of a lawful citizen and undermines democracy,” he said at the meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House. “Can’t let that happen. Any form of illegal or fraudulent voting, whether by noncitizens or the deceased, and any form of voter suppression or intimidation must be stopped.”

Trump said the country has “no choice” but to investigate the election process. “We have no choice. We want to make America great again,” he said.

“We have to protect the integrity of the vote and our voters. This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue. It’s an American issue. It’s about the concern of so many Americans that improper voting has taken place and [is] cancelling out the votes of lawful American citizens.”

Wednesday marked the first meeting of the Election Integrity Commission, which is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.

Pence, who spoke before Trump, defended the bipartisan nature of the commission in his opening remarks, arguing that election integrity “transcends party lines.”

“This bipartisan group will perform a truly non partisan service to the American people,” he said."

When Trump said that voter fraud was occurring, the TTF-type lunatics howled: "but, there's no proof, WAAAAAHH!"

now, as a commission begins to look into it, many states are impeding the investigation and refusing to provide information

""ha-ha! reading through the posts earlier today, I see Priya repeatedly trying to provoke comments oh well, maybe I won't post anything at all about those inane comments that should drive lazy Priya freakin' mad!!""

Voter fraud has been researched a great deal. Actual voter fraud happens somwhere around .00001 percent of the time.

The claims of voter fraud are fake news.

----------------------------

If Republicans sabotage Obamacare there will be32 million more uninsured$137 billion added to the deficitPremiums will double in ten years.Tens of thousands will die needlesslyMillions will live worse lives than necessary.

The fake Trump "voter fraud" commission isn't going to be spending any time looking for voter fraud they know doesn't exist.

It was set up solely to collect information to aid in voter suppression of minorities, young people, and the poor who mostly vote Democratic.

That's why they're asking for names, addresses, and party affiliation of everyone in the country. The man heading the fake "voter fraud" commission is the same person responsible for coming up with all the voter suppression laws Republican governors implemented for the 2016 election without which Trump would have lost the popular vote by a much wider margin and failed to be declared president on a technicality.

Wow, that didn't last long. So much for Wyatt/bad anonymous's latest insistence he wasn't going to respond to my posts.

Wyatt/bad anonymous is so pathetic! Regularly insisting "it will be a cold day in hell" before he ever responds to one of my posts and then shortly afterwords finding he doesn't have the balls to restrain himself.

And Wyatt, you couldn't pay me to go into the States, a country with out of control government and corrupt law enforcement that makes up shite about innocent people and imprisons and executes them, a country where half the population is severely deluded, gun crazy and hostile.

Your country is far too scary for me to ever willingly set foot in it.

In a scorching editorial published by a major Texas daily newspaper, President Donald Trump’s first six months in office were documented in embarrassing detail with the nicest Leubsdorf takes a deep dive into Trump’s six months in office and, as the saying goes, “documents the atrocities.”

Spurred more divisiveness in an already divided Middle East by setting off a squabble between Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally, and Qatar, home of the region’s biggest U.S. military base.

Turning to domestic issues of the type Trump ran on, the president fared no better.

Created uncertainty in the nation’s health care system by sending inconsistent administrative signals and supporting legislation that could deprive millions of people health insurance coverage, undermine Medicaid health support for lower income Americans and give wealthy taxpayers a massive tax cut.

Created a commission to investigate his unproven allegations of voter fraud because he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

Hired foxes to watch the chicken coops by filling his administration with archconservatives, many with records opposing the very agencies in which they work, and curbing civil rights and environmental enforcement.

Then there is the “institutional damage” Trump has done and continues to do.

Committed potentially impeachable offenses of obstructing j ustice that prompted appointment of a Special Counsel by firing FBI Director James Comey, because of his probe into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia, and urging other intelligence officials to pressure Comey to halt the probe.

Intensified racial and other divisions by reducing governmental civil rights guarantees and reversing protections for sexual and racial minorities.

Waged a vendetta against news outlets subjecting his administration to scrutiny, calling the mainstream media the “enemy of the American people” and denouncing unfavorable stories as “fake news.” Undercut White House press institutions intended to facilitate dialogue between the presidency and the public.

As Leubsdorf concludes, Trump has spearheaded “the least support for any new modern president, an exacerbation of domestic divisions, and unprecedented global disdain and embarrassment.”

Over 73 percent of Democrats would give up alcohol for the rest of their life if it meant President Trump would be impeached tomorrow, according to a survey released on Thursday by a drug and alcohol rehabilitation group.

"Over 73 percent of Democrats would give up alcohol for the rest of their life if it meant President Trump would be impeached tomorrow, according to a survey released on Thursday by a drug and alcohol rehabilitation group."

this is the same group that promised to move to Canada if Trump was elected

Heads will roll. That's the message Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge wants to get across about President Trump's historically low approval ratings.

He tweeted this picture of Trump's latest Rasmussen poll numbers, dating back to when he took office with the caption, "Heads will roll.

Rasmussen is usually Pro-Trump but Wednesday's tracking poll put the President at a 42 percent approval.

This all comes during a pretty rough two-week stretch for Trump -- including reports about a meeting his son Donald Trump Jr. had in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer and the GOP-led Senate failure to pass its Obamacare replacement health care plan.

Drudge himself has taken to Twitter more often since Trump's inauguration mostly going after Republicans on Capitol Hill.

"The Trump administration has spent taxpayer money meant to encourage enrollment in the Affordable Care Act on a public relations campaign aimed at methodically strangling it.

The effort, which involves a multi-pronged social media push as well as video testimonials designed at damaging public opinion of President Obama’s health care law, is far more robust and sustained than has been publicly revealed or realized.

The strategy has caught the eye of legal experts and Democrats in Congress, who have asked government agencies to investigate whether the administration has misused funds and engaged in covert propaganda in its efforts to damage and overturn the seven-year-old health care law. It’s also roiled Obama administration veterans, who argue that the current White House is not only abdicating its responsibilities to administer the law but sabotaging it in an effort to facilitate its undoing by Congress.

“I’m on a daily basis horrified by leaders at the Department of Health and Human Services who seem intent on taking healthcare away from the constituents they are supposed to serve,” former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “We always believed that delivering health and human services was the mission of the department. That seems to not be the mission of the current leadership.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined repeated attempts to discuss its PR efforts. But more than half-a-dozen sources at various agencies and on the Hill outlined the scope of the anti-Obamacare push in conversations with The Daily Beast.

Under Secretary Tom Price’s stewardship, HHS has filmed and produced a series of testimonial videos featuring individuals claiming to have been harmed by Obamacare. Those “viral” videos have had decidedly limited reach, often gathering somewhere between 100 and 200 views each. But the Department has made a heavy investment in them nonetheless. To date, it has released 23 videos. A source familiar with the video production says that there have been nearly 30 interviews conducted in total, from which more than 130 videos have been produced.

Each testimonial has the same look, feel, and setting, with the subjects sitting before a gray backdrop and speaking directly to camera about how Obamacare has harmed their lives. They were all shot at the Department’s internal studio, according to numerous sources who worked for or continue to work at HHS. Under the Obama administration, it was customary that such videos were recorded and edited by an outside contractor who then billed the department for its work. One former official said that the contractor would charge roughly $550 an hour.

Funding for those videos would come from the Department’s “consumer information and outreach” budget, which was previously used for the purposes of advertising the ACA and encouraging enrollment. The Trump administration has requested $574 million for this specific budget item, though HHS declined to detail how much it has devoted to specific line items. Two sources familiar with the videos say that HHS continues to draw money from the outreach fund, even though its objective has switched from promoting the ACA to highlighting the law’s critics and its shortcomings.

Getting the subjects to HHS’ studio also cost taxpayer money. In this case, the White House itself found individuals, often through local news stories and Republican Party connections, and flew them to Washington, D.C., to participate in roundtables to discuss Obamacare. From there, they were whisked across town to HHS headquarters.“We had no clue [this was happening],” Tracie Sanchez of Lima, Ohio, told The Daily Beast. “That just popped up when we got there.”..."

"...Under the Affordable Care Act, both HHS and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have broad authorities to administer the law—from implementing and relaxing penalties, to working with commissioners to shore up markets.The Obama White House often used these administrative powers to circumvent efforts by congressional Republicans to undermine the ACA. Trump and company have gone in a diametrically different direction.CMS has put out debatable numbers that make it appear that state health insurance exchanges are on less stable footing. The White House has wavered routinely on whether to pay cost-sharing reductions that insurers—and virtually every health economist—say are necessary to keep markets stable. And during the tail end of the 2017 enrollment period, HHS pulled television advertising and temporarily suspended social media efforts alerting consumers to the final sign up date.Then there is Twitter. The official HHS account has become a clearinghouse for anti-Obamacare messaging. Since the Trump administration came into office, @HHSGov has mentioned “Obamacare” 13 specific times, 10 of which could be described as openly hostile of the law. Twice the account has re-tweeted Secretary Price’s own account when it has explicitly encouraged legislative efforts to undo Obamacare. The first was on May 4, when Price applauded the house for passing its bill, the American Health Care Act. The second came on June 5, when Price used the hashtag #RepealAndReplace.Perhaps the most glaring efforts to publicly undermine the ACA, has come on the Department of Health and Human Service’s own website. In the Obama administration, this piece of online real estate featured direct links for consumers to apply for coverage and infographic breakdowns of the ACA’s benefits and critical dates. Since Trump was inaugurated, it has been retrofitted into an bulletin board for information critical of the law.Currently, for example, the banner image on the site leads to a page explaining the ways in which the ACA “has done damage to this market and created great burdens for many Americans.” The “Health Care Home” section no longer contains a page on “Delivery System Reform” and “Facts & Figures.” And instead of a readily available link for visitors to access the main sign-up portal for obtaining health care coverage, the site has a post criticizing the now infamous healthcare.gov and encouraging people to use private sector web brokers.Subtle changes have been made to the “About the ACA” section of the website as well that reflect the current administration’s hostility toward to the law.* The “Plain Language Benefits” section has been scrapped as has the section on “ER Access & Doctor Choice.”* Under the “pre-existing conditions” section, the Trump version has removed any mention of women no longer being able to be charged more than men for coverage.* Under the “Young Adult Coverage” section, the Trump HHS site no longer notes that before the ACA insurance companies could have removed enrolled children at the age of 19.* Mentions of the “Affordable Care Act” have been replaced with “current law.”* And while the Obama HHS site had a section noting that the ACA forced insurance companies to provide “easy-to-understand” summaries of benefit and coverage packages, the Trump site has no such page....How much damage these alterations have had on Obamacare is ultimately unknowable. But those whose job it once was to encourage enrollment insist that the burying of information, the pausing of advertising, and creation of policy confusion has collectively had a profound effect.“I think uncertainty causes people to freeze,” said Andy Slavitt, the former acting administrator at CMS. “So I think it is quite impactful. And look, you’re not hired into the administration to decide whether you agree with the law you’re asked to execute. That’s not your job... Congress appropriates funds for you to carry out laws that they passed, not to spend those funds on activities that counteract those laws.”..."

On Feb. 17, 2017, Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) wrote Price a letter raising their concerns with the changes HHS had made to healthcare.gov and its decision to pull enrollment-deadline advertising (PDF). On June 6, 2017, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Murray wrote the HHS’ inspector general requesting an investigation of the agency’s “actions to undermine the ongoing implementation” of the ACA (PDF). A week later, four leading congressional Democrats wrote a letter to the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an investigation into the various ways in which HHS used its public relations resources to help promote repeal of Obamacare (PDF).Their offices tell The Daily Beast that they have not yet received responses from the administration. As for GAO, however, there is ample precedent to suggest that it will look into the matter. In 2010, the office examined HHS’ decision to pay contractors for help producing television advertisement concerning changes Obamacare made to the Medicare. It concluded that HHS had operated within the law because the ads did not constitute “a purely partisan activity”—which it defined as “completely devoid of any connection with official functions” and “completely political in nature.”Years later, the GAO came down differently on another Obama agency. In December 2015, the office ruled that the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency had engaged in “covert propaganda” in its use of social media to encourage public support for its clean-water regulations.Both Murray and Wyden’s office said that they are waiting to hear back from the GAO on whether the Trump administration has engaged in similarly out-of-bounds conduct. But administrative law experts say that the department is coming close to, if not fully crossing, the line of legality. HHS is allowed to use funds for purposes of educating the public but it is prohibited under its appropriations statute from engaging in overt advocacy—such as encourage the passage or defeat of legislation.The testimonial videos venture into the realm of political influencing, said Cary Coglianese, the Edward B. Shils professor of law and professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. But it was the tweets from Price and the HHS account—the ones encouraging and applauding passage of legislation—that drifted into legally troublesome areas.“It certainly all sounds highly problematic and inappropriate,” said Coglianese. “It does seem very much akin to the kind of propaganda that the GAO faulted EPA for engaging in. The tweets by the Secretary are clearly seeking to shape public attitudes about Obamacare and whether it should be repealed and replaced. He is explicit about that. And it is highly unusual and, I think, problematic when government officials engage in that kind of public outreach.”"

"...Trump’s most repeated claim, uttered 44 times, was some variation of the statement that the Affordable Care Act is dying and “essentially dead.” But the Congressional Budget Office has said that the Obamacare exchanges, despite well-documented issues, are not imploding and are expected to remain stable for the foreseeable future. If anything, actions taken by the Trump administration have spawned uncertainty. Several insurance companies have cited Trump administration policy as a reason to leave insurance markets in certain states, though others have sensed opportunity and moved in to replace insurers who have left.

The apparent implosion of the Senate health-care bill suggests the limits of Trump’s rhetoric. His repeated claim that Obamacare has already failed or is dead, in the face of objective evidence that the law is actually working, failed to win enough votes for passage — and failed to sway Democrats to consider working with him. Only rarely has the president tried to make a positive case for action on health care, as opposed to simply tearing down the Affordable Care Act.

Trump, as he did during the presidential campaign, also exaggerated the impact of increases in premiums on the Obamacare exchanges, cherry-picking numbers from a handful of states. Trump also frequently uses the calculation of premium increases without incorporating the impact of tax credits — which most people in the exchanges receive. If you take the subsidies into account, the average monthly premium of most people in the Obamacare exchanges goes down, not up.

Trump also has a disturbing habit of taking credit for events or business decisions that happened before he took the oath of office — or had even been elected. Some 30 times, he’s touted that he secured business investments and job announcements that had been previously announced and could easily be found with a Google search. Nearly 20 times he’s boasted that he achieved a reduction in the cost of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, even though the price cut had been in the works before he was elected.

Trump even claimed that it took “one sentence” to get the president of China to agree to sell U.S. beef in China. “I said, President Xi, we’d love to sell beef back in China again. He said, you can do that. That was the end of that,” Trump bragged on July 17. Perhaps it was so easy because the Obama administration already had brokered the beef deal back in September. The only thing that was new was a set date for beef sales to start.

Seventeen times, Trump asserted that because he demanded NATO members pay their fair share, “billions of dollars more have begun to pour into NATO.” But at a NATO summit in 2014, after Russian aggression in Ukraine, NATO members pledged to stop cutting their defense expenditures and by 2024 “move toward” a goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Since the 2014 meeting, defense expenditures from member countries have increased steadily..."

"Bush compared abortion to slavery, calling them “the two greatest tragedies in our country.” He also called for gagging then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, applauded critics of same-sex marriage, mocked climate change and celebrated “the witch is dead” when he thought the Affordable Care Act might not be enacted...""

other than the Pelosi comment, I see no problem

of course, I'm not aware of the Pelosi comment and since you don't provide a quote, I won't endorse your characterization, given the current liberal standard of disingenuousness

Trump has been very successful at getting nominees who believe in the Constitution approved by Congress

The Hillary Clinton campaign took aim at Trump’s trademark campaign slogan hats in August 2016, but it turns out the hats themselves were at least partially produced here in the states. The hats are hand-stitched in California, reports AP. But a fabric analysis and a conversation with two of the manufacturer’s employees and a top sales agent determined that “the hats’ fabric, bills and stiffeners were imported.”

Trump Water

Trump water, “one of the purest natural spring waters bottled in the world,” according to Trump’s website, is sourced in Vermont and New York.

Trump Bedding*

*The Washington Post reported Trump’s bedding comforters are made in the U.S., but the link cited is no longer active. The bedding used in Trump’s hotels is, according to the Downlite website, “filled and finished in the USA of imported materials,” while the shell is made in China. So these get half a point, we guess.

Ivanka Trump deals so much with foreign factories to source her clothing, it was even reported that her brand imported 53 metric tons of Chinese goods during her father’s “Buy American Hire American” speech.

Ivanka Trump Shoes

Trump’s brand made headlines in June for acknowledging its work with a shoe factory in which two men were arrested while investigating her supply chain, but simply stated the brand had since distanced itself from said factory.

Donald Trump Ties

You do remember that David Letterman segment, in which Letterman not only asks Trump where his ties are made but then informs him they are made in China, don’t you?

Donald Trump Suits

Facebook user Mary Cummins shared an image of a Donald Trump suit back in 2015 with a label that reads “Made in Mexico.” Other suits are reportedly made in Indonesia, according to Buzzfeed.

Donald Trump Dress Shirts

See the David Letterman segment above ― the shirts in question were made in Bangladesh.

Donald Trump Chandeliers

The fact that Trump makes chandeliers in the first place, let alone chandeliers that cost more than $1,000, is not surprising. Neither is the fact that they are, at least in part, made in China, according to Amazon.

Trump Throw blanket

According to Amazon purchasers, the blanket, which is listed as “imported,” is made in China.

"Monday, September 29, 2008Thanks, Mama Pelosi, For That 700 Point Stock Market Plunge!

We can thank House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan rhetoric for the Wall Street legislation going down in flames today in the House. No doubt she was suffering from severe lack of sleep, but there really was no excuse for her standing up before the vote and trying to place the entire blame on Republicans -- and specifically President Bush -- for the financial market crisis.

Wasn't it the Democrats who just last week decried injecting "presidential politics" into the legislative debate? Well, that is exactly what Pelosi did today -- and House Republicans were understandably furious at her for trying to spin the vote even before it was taken.

So it's back to the drawing boards for the Administration and Congress to come up with Plan B. Here's one suggestion to get things started: gag the House Speaker.

If Congressman John Yarmuth is still "messaging" for Pelosi, he's got his work cut out for him. It's time for Anne Northup to run an ad hanging Pelosi around Yarmuth's neck.

Update: Make that a 777.68 point plunge.

Update: I guess Yarmuth has resigned his position on Pelosi's "messaging" team: he voted against the bill. So did Congressmen Ben Chandler, Geoff Davis and Ed Whitfield. Congressmen Ron Lewis and Harold “Hal” Rogers voted for it.Posted by G. Morris at 3:51 PM

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is—(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b) Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c) Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

"APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSELTO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERSBy virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemment's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations areapplicable to the Special Counsel.

How much goalpost moving should be tolerable in the Trump-Russia collusion investigation?

Remember, we started with an allegation that the Trump campaign may have been complicit in the Putin regime’s “cyber-espionage”—i.e., the hacking our intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian government operatives carried out against email accounts tied to Democrats. The investigation took a more serious turn last week, when it was revealed that Trump campaign officials met in June 2016 with a suspected emissary of the Putin regime. Yet, there is currently no basis to believe that meeting had anything to do with hacking. So, while the meeting warrants investigation, the original allegation is no closer to being proved.

Of course, it is certainly possible for a political campaign and a foreign government to engage jointly in unsavory behavior that does not rise to the level of crime. The less objectionable the behavior, however, the further afield we would be from the egregious allegation that prompted the investigation in the first place. Unless one is a rank partisan whose goal is to damage the president (rather than hold him accountable for actual, significant wrongdoing), this should be a matter of concern. Investigations are debilitating. They erode an administration’s ability to govern.

The investigation is a moving target because of its slippery vocabulary. It has been discussed and analyzed through the prism of “collusion” and “counterintelligence.”

When we think of an “investigation,” the connotation is a criminal proceeding—crimes, penal law, grand juries, subpoenas, warrants, arrests … prosecution. In that thicket, the terms “collusion” and “counterintelligence” are outliers. The former is a vague term that blurs the legally salient lines between mere association and conspiracy—that is, the difference between innocence and guilt. The latter is an unnecessary term: a counterintelligence investigation is an information-gathering exercise designed to divine the intentions of foreign powers to the extent they bear on American interests; a criminal investigation, by contrast, is an evidence-gathering exercise designed to build a prosecutable case that a specified person has committed a suspected penal-law offense.

In the criminal law, our sights are trained on conspiracy, which makes things easy. A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a violation of law. If Smith and Jones have a meeting, it is of no concern to the police unless the meeting is for the purpose of, say, arranging a heroin shipment or robbing a bank. It is the criminal offense that is the objective of the meeting, and nothing else, that makes the meeting relevant.

To speak in terms of collusion rather than conspiracy—as the Russia investigation coverage often does—only confuses matters. Contrary to what you may have heard from sundry “strategists” and “analysts,” collusion is neither a crime nor a term that has a legally consequential meaning. The word has a pejorative feel, especially in the last seven months. But literally, all it means is “concerted activity.” That could be criminal or noncriminal, sinister or benign.

Thus, if we insist on asking about “collusion” in the context of a criminal investigation, we’re really asking two questions: was there any concerted activity between two or more people, and, if yes, what was the precise nature of the activity—i.e., collusion in what?

That is where we are at with respect to the Trump Tower meeting. In light of the Donald Trump, Jr. emails and the meeting that followed them, it makes little sense to me to claim there was no “concerted activity.” Yet, the “in what?” question remains vital.

In an ordinary federal criminal case, if the “what” is not a felony, there is no cause to investigate further. Here, of course, we are not talking about an ordinary criminal investigation. The president is involved. Our standards for presidents are higher than whether an indictable crime has been committed. They involve fitness for the high responsibilities of the office. Since there is now indisputable proof of some kind of concerted activity between Trump campaign staff and potential Russian operatives, it is worth focusing investigative attention on the exact purpose of that activity and the nature of the relationship.

Nevertheless, a counterintelligence investigation is the wrong vehicle for such an inquiry. It is not designed to investigate wrongdoing. Its purpose is to collect intelligence in order to understand a foreign power’s designs and to predict its behavior. It is forward-looking, whereas criminal investigations are retrospective. It seeks to assess, not to prove. As such, there are no natural limitations on the investigator’s warrant; it is completely open-ended.

The lack of jurisdictional confines exacerbates a problem that exists in every special counsel investigation: the assignment of a prosecutor with prodigious resources to probe a single target (or set of targets) with a mandate and a high incentive to make a case if there is one to be made.

In an ordinary prosecutor’s office, a lawyer is assigned to investigate, say, a suspected fraud crime. The assignment is finite. Depending on the complexity of the fraud scheme (most are not that complicated), the prosecutor and the police working on the investigation know what kind of evidence are looking for. They will either find it or not in relatively short order. If they find it, the case is indicted; if they do not find it within a reasonable time, the case is closed. The office has lots of cases and cannot afford the luxury of too much time and resources spent on any single one.

To the contrary, a special counsel such as Mueller, has only one case to worry about—he can pour into it all the resources at his disposal into it. The only solace for an investigative subject in such a heavy-handed arrangement is that the prosecutor is supposed to be looking for something specific. The regulations for assigning special counsels when the Justice Department is beset by a conflict-of-interest call for there to be a basis for a criminal investigation—a specific, suspected crime—before the special counsel is assigned.

To make the special counsel investigation a counterintelligence investigation eviscerates this modicum of protection and investigative discipline. Mueller has virtually unlimited resources, one set of targets to focus on, and no jurisdictional restrictions.

This is how it becomes so easy to slide from hacking conspiracy to “collusion” in something (who knows what?), to obstruction of the limitless investigation, to whatever crimes Mueller and his swelling staff of notoriously aggressive prosecutors might reasonably suspect . . . or creatively imagine.

It is fair to observe that there was more interaction between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian regime (including Putin’s oligarch cronies) than the president and his subordinates acknowledged. Even if that interaction is unrelated to Russia’s cyber-espionage, the nature and extent of the relationship merits investigation.

But an investigation of a president necessarily compromises an administration’s capacity to govern. That can harm the country. Therefore, the investigation must have parameters.

The applicable regulations make it incumbent on the Justice Department to specify what exactly a special counsel is authorized to investigate. The Justice Department has failed to do this, a dereliction that must be rectified. Complying with this requirement would not prevent special counsel Mueller from seeking an expansion of his jurisdiction were he to discover behavior that warrants additional investigation. But limits must be imposed.

If they are not, there is no telling where the probe will wander, how long it will take, and how paralyzing it will be. And that does not serve the country well.

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has just been released from federal prison after serving only 15 months. Hastert, who is the longest-serving Republican speaker in United States history, fell from grace last year after he confessed to molesting and raping a number of teenage boys while he worked as a wrestling coach at a Chicago high school.

Despite being exposed as a “serial child molester” — as Judge Thomas Durkin bluntly described him — Hastert will never face any consequences for these crimes. Instead, his relatively short time in prison came about due to bank fraud.

Desperate to keep his sordid past from surfacing, Hastert illegally paid out $3.5 million in an attempt to silence his victims.

His heinous crimes notwithstanding, there are several aspects of Hastert’s trial and sentencing that warrant criticism.

While on trial, dozens of people — including friends, family and his former Republican colleagues — were part of an outpouring of support. Many sent letters to Hastert’s judge, pleading for leniency and emphasizing the former speaker’s admirable character.

Considering that Hastert admitted to sexual abuse while on trial, this is puzzling — if not deeply troubling. Put simply, it is one of the more cut-and-dry examples of rape culture in the United States. The reputation of a man, especially one who occupied a position of great power, is considered more important than the people he harmed.

It also explains how Hastert was able to persist in keeping his skeletons in the closet for so long -– power and wealth can go a long way. Sexual abuse does not happen in a vacuum; it is difficult to believe that Hastert and those he assaulted were the only ones aware of these horrific actions.

On another level, this situation reveals the problematic nature of statute of limitations laws when they pertain to sex crimes — especially those involving minors.

Though many states have wisely done away with such laws altogether when minors are concerned, others have not — and, obviously, Illinois is one of these states.

In North Dakota, minors have seven years to report a crime; in Kentucky, a report has to be made by age 23; in Nevada, by 21. And in Hawaii, depending on the severity of the crime, minors have a mere three to six years. Meanwhile, in Tennessee, incredibly, a report must be filed by 18 years of age or four years after the incident.

To say these statute of limitations laws are flawed would be an understatement. It can be extremely difficult for survivors to comprehend or even acknowledge sexual abuse in the first place –- and this can be true for many years after and even well into adulthood.

New Jersey has dealt with similar situations quite recently. When Democratic U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg died in June 2013, Christie, up for reelection that November, appointed his confidant, former state Attorney General Jeff Chiesa, a Republican, to temporarily fill the seat. But only for a few months as Corey Booker easily won Launtenberg's old seat.

Christie was scared of Booker's statewide popularity and was banking on a landslide 2013 reelection victory to help his prospects for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, which turned out to be a dud. He could have scheduled the election to replace Lautenberg to coincide with his November 2013 reelection. Instead, Christie called a special election for mid-October 2013, just three weeks before his own reelection — a move that cost the state approximately $12 million.

Deep-blue New Jersey will elect a new Governor on November 7, 2017. Gov. Christie with his 15% approval rating is term-limited so won't be running.

"you'll notice he doesn't have authority to go beyond unless the AG, who reports to the President, grants it"

The AG has recused himself (see https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-statement-recusal ) and thereby punted full AG responsibility to investigate "any matter related in any way to the campaign for President of the United States" to Assistant AG Rosenstein, whose letter was copied in full and its URL provided above.

"The AG has recused himself (see https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-statement-recusal ) and thereby punted full AG responsibility to investigate "any matter related in any way to the campaign for President of the United States" to Assistant AG Rosenstein, whose letter was copied in full and its URL provided above."

The AG needs to resign. News out today is that he committed perjury when he testified he didn't discuss the campaign with the Russian ambassador. He needs to do more than recuse himself, he needs to retire and hope he avoids prosecution. With a new AG, they'll be no need for a "special" whatever Mueller is.

As a libertarian, I've been disturbed by Sessions from the beginning. He wants to prosecute every case to the extreme and now has strengthened the ability of law enforcement to seize of people accused but not found guilty of minor crimes.

The creepy little nut needs to go back to Alabama. His Cadillac has a wheel in the ditch and a wheel on the track.

"... The meeting, at a minimum, shows that Trump Jr. was eager to collude with the Russian government, which, he had been told, was trying to get his father elected president. Kushner’s statement denies any collusion on his own part, and claims no awareness of any other collusion:

"I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government."

Of course, what Trump Jr.’s email chain showed is that the campaign jumped at the chance to collude, even if it ended up not happening at that meeting. Recall that Trump Jr.’s original statement covered up the real reason for the meeting, and that Trump himself reportedly signed off on that initial false statement, which means the president actively participated in an effort to mislead the country about his own campaign’s eagerness to collude with Russia to help him win. Kushner’s statement offers nothing to challenge these underlying facts. It just separates him from them..."

He didn't just "receive information." He actively sought to meet with "The Crown prosecutor of Russia" to receive "official documents and information" which was "very high level and sensitive information":

"...The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

BestRob Goldstone"

To which Junior replied:

"Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?Best,Don"

To which Goldstone replied:

"Hi DonLet me know when you are free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary info - you had mentioned early this week so wanted to try to schedule a time and day Best to you and family Rob Goldstone"

The Trumps were explicitly and unambiguously offered information collected by Russian spies secretly and illegally infiltrating US computer systems. If you or I discovered that Russian spies had someone's documents we would call the FBI. I would certainly not respond with "I love it!" This is not "politics as usual" (which by the way DJT swore to end).

"Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?Best,Don"

this is active

sounds like he said he meet with someone who said he had important information about the opposition

this someone had contacted him

he didn't initiate or encourage anything illegal and there is no evidence of any quid pro quo

"The Trumps were explicitly and unambiguously offered information collected by Russian spies secretly and illegally infiltrating US computer systems."

doesn't the media and US government hack computers all the time?

according to Edward Snowden they do and the US government wants him for revealing secrets, so what does that tell you?

someone said they have information that Hillary was dealing with Russia

when people said the same about Trump, it was shouted from the rooftops coast-to-coast

what's the difference?

"If you or I discovered that Russian spies had someone's documents we would call the FBI. I would certainly not respond with "I love it!""

people who have spied (the media) put every Trump document they can find in the public arena every day

Wow Anon, you're good. Tell me, how do you push the button where Blogger wants you to confirm "I'm not a robot"? Do you have a human come over and do that, or is that part of your trolling app?

The Trumps were meeting with the Russians to acquire materials that Russian spies had gotten by infiltrating American computer systems. Now you may live in a world where hacking is normal, treason is "legal," and you might even think that politicians do this all the time. You might think that the President of the United States, the leader of our country, should engage in these kinds of activities.

I disagree. The Constitution is stronger than him and all he can do now is what he's doing: run scared and shoot his mouth off.